Vice President of Student Affairs Peter Baigent assured the student body that school officials would do everything in their power to help them relocate to the school of their choice, whether or not that school is Stony Brook. Baigent seemed to state that Stony Brook was prepared to reach out to other colleges on behalf of Southampton students to explain the special circumstances in the event that a deadline has passed.
Students who do wish to transfer to the main campus would be guaranteed a place on campus and given priority in room selection. Their credits would also be fully recognized by Stony Brook, and many of the programs currently offered at Southampton would be relocated to the main campus, including the popular sustainability majors.
What won’t transfer to the main campus is the atmosphere, argue students. Southampton was known for its close-knit community, and on several occasions Wednesday, students referred to one another as family. That is a stark contrast to the main campus’ 20,000 strong student body. The main campus was criticized on multiple occasions as being cold and unfriendly, “a concrete jungle” said one student.
“Nobody smiles on the main campus,” said one student during President Stanley’s remarks, an observation that elicited a brief moment of levity among the campus community.
Despite unanswered questions about next fall, the focus on Wednesday was on saving Southampton. Students were urging Stanley to let them try and fight the cuts or raise the money themselves to continue to operate, even if it were for only another year. Even a year, they argue, will give them enough time to make arrangements.
Students and faculty were visibly distraught over the news. Several left the auditorium in tears, clinging to friends for support. But equally many students left determined to remedy the situation. A group of roughly 15 students met after the event to begin laying the foundations for fighting the university’s decision.
According to one of the student leaders, a 501 (c) 3 that was created back in 2005 to try and fight Long Island University’s decision to close the campus was reactivated. The same student alluded to possible legal challenges as well, which would include a motion to stay the decision past Stanley’s August 31 deadline.
Others took to some usual outlets for support as well. A Facebook page created Tuesday night already has over 4000 members, more than eight times the number of students who actually attend Southampton.
The students also have the support of local politicians. State Senator Fred Thiele lobbed heavy criticism at the administration for their decision, as did Congressman Tim Bishop, who served as the provost at Southampton before he was elected to the House of Representatives.
Stony Brook will keep two of the buildings operational at Southampton. They will be used for SoMAS laboratory and field research courses and the graduate program for writing and literature, long a staple of the Southampton campus. Many of the remaining academic programs will be relocated to the main campus and reorganized as either an interdisciplinary major or within their own department. Some offerings though will be discontinued. Provost Eric Kaler guaranteed students that the courses they need to finish their degrees will be available to them at the main campus
The popular sustainability program, one of the few in the world, will be reorganized under Mary Pearl.
Southampton was purchased by Stony Brook University for $35 million in 2006 after Long Island University threatened to close the campus for good. State Senator Thiele estimates that Stony Brook invested a further $43 million into the campus since then, most recently by opening an environmentally friendly library in October 2009, barely six months ago.
The campus was heavily marketed as one of the most sustainable, “green” colleges in the country. NBC Nightly News profiled the school for it’s commitment to the environment as well, and the number of applications this year was up 54% according to university officials.
Passion for the environment is a common attribute among Southampton students as well. Many see the main campus as the exact opposite of Southampton, an energy-inefficient behemoth with little concern for the environment. And the thought of studying there is off-putting to some students.
“I have qualms about living on an unsustainable campus when I’m studying sustainability,” said Chelsea Holmes, a freshman at Southampton. “I have a problem being a hypocrite.”
Sophomore Juliann Navarra argues that this decision sends the wrong message about Stony Brook’s commitment to sustainability.
“We should have been their number one priority, especially in this day and age,” she said.
In the meantime, students have to find a way to finish the remaining few weeks of class.
“I feel like I’m not as determined,” said Navarra. “I have a Calc B midterm tomorrow at 9:20 in the morning. You think I want to take that right now?”
As much as I understand the pain and frustration these students are going through, I really don’t appreciate the insults and negative comments being thrown around at the West campus, which I am proud to attend. It’s not an unfriendly place, plenty of people are smiling or happy to be at school that gives them an awesome education for a completely reasonable price, and you don’t have to be ‘just another number’ if you chose not to be. There’s plenty of opportunities at the West Campus, theres plenty of ways to get involved and make friends, and theres plenty of resources to get you on a more intimate level with your professors.
I don’t think there is a single student on the Southampton Campus who is attempting to insult West Campus. We are merely trying to assert our uniqueness and identity. This is a tragedy for our students and students on the West campus should not take our comments or concerns personal. Rather, you should support our efforts to see that this campus remains open. Fact: Students are offering to match 100% the $6.7 million that several politicians offered to cover the costs. Fact: President Stanley turned this offer of FREE money down.
Fact: West Campus has endless possibilities and is a stellar campus. Southampton is a proud partner of the Stony Brook Family and we do not want this Family to be broken. Unfortunately the mission of West campus is different from ours. West should be honored that Southampton has such intelligent, bright, and energetic students. West should do what is necessary to preserve our uniqueness (especially when others are willing to pay for it). West, with all its intelligence, should know that the GREEN ECONOMY is the FUTURE ECONOMY!
Saying that no ones smiles over at West campus, and that we are unfriendly here is an insult, especially to someone who tries to be friendly with as many people as possible. I personally feel that if SBS students are looking for the West Campus’ support, they shouldnt be calling us unfriendly.
I am in full support of the SBS campus being kept alive, and I have been actively following all of the articles, videos, and updates about the situation. I even tried to reach out to CNN news station I randomly ran into at the train station today! (Unfortunatly, they shut the story down because they said it was too local… apparently CNN is more national than I thought) I know how important this is to everyone who attends SBS, and I understand the fustration and pain. I am, however, disheartened to keep hearing the negative comments about West campus… you can say they arent insults, but they really are.
If it comes down to SBS students coming over here to West, I will be happy to try and prove their pre-conceived notions about West Campus wrong.
It’s too bad that the previous Administration was over ambitious and instead of focusing on quality education, they were focused on expansion and quantity of property. They paid $26.3 million for 246 acres (Flowerfield-Gyrodyne) in St. James and Stony Brook and that was aquired by eminent domain and that is still being fought in court.
http://libn.com/blog/2009/03/10/gyrodyne-gets-day-in-court/
Then they purchase the 81 acres in Southampton at $35 million and invested another $43 million in renovations only to pull the rug out from the students.
Greed and power are at the expense of taxpayers and the surrounding communities.
I’m sure this is not what Ward Melville had in mind when he donated his property to the state and I doubt he would have wanted a Hotel in his backyard either!
my son is a student at sbs. not only has the administration committed a travesty gainst the students, but they have done so to the taxpayers of the state as well. we the taxpayers, made an 78 million dollar investment in this campus, an investment into our future. pres stanley has unilaterily stolen that investment from the taxpayers. who are these people answerable to? can the state legislator fource the university to live up to its promises?
All of the cuts that will occur to Stony Brook U. (and all the SUNY sister schools) are tragic. Ask yourselves if the legislature that raised tuition and then TOOK that money, a legislature that raided SBU accounts (some programs are self sustaining but they small amount of profit is needed to keep the programs running into the next year) ask how the legislature, who sets the SUNY budgets, can continue year after year to cut funding to the campuses – while expenses go up – and keep all the tuition can insist that the campuses NOT make changes to continue to keep the place afloat. The SUNY mission is to educate the public, the legislature decides how much of our hard earned tax payer dollars end up serving the mission and how much ends up paying for politician’s pet projects.
Remember – the money SUNY needs to run programs is decided by the LEGISLATURE – SBU’s share of the deficit is 33 million dollars. Without closing SBS – more than 500 people would be losing jobs.. as it is many people will lose jobs, programs will not be able to fill positions and yet – students will continue to arrive and expect (as they should!) to be educated in the highly rigorous manner that SBU is famous for… I am sad for ALL the students, SBS, SBU and ALL of SUNY – NY talks about wanting to educate our children – but they never put the money where their mouth is!!
I just finished finals at SB SH as an online distance learning student. Do I have a place to register for fall? I just called the records person and the phone is disconnected. Any one like to comment on how this could be happening like this? Seems surreal but then again so does this governourship we are barely surving.
In May 2010, the students sued Pres. Stanley, SBU, the university council & the SUNY Board of Trustees in NYS Supreme Court. In August, the students won their lawsuit. The judge ruled that Stanley & SBU violated state law in closing the college. The closure is ILLEGAL. The students are now awaiting the judge’s signature on their judgement proposal that would force SBU to reopen the college for next semester, Spring 2011. David/Goliath…
(press release)
STATEMENT OF ASSEMBLYMAN FRED W. THIELE ON STATE SUPREME COURT DECISION DECLARING THE CLOSING OF SOUTHAMPTON CAMPUS ILLEGAL
“By a decision dated August 27, 2010, the State Supreme Court of the State of New York has declared the closing of Southampton college by President Sam Stanley and Stony Brook University to be illegal. The closure decision has been annulled and Stony Brook University has been enjoined from taking any further actions to close the campus. The students of the Southampton campus are to be congratulated for taking action against this unfair, ill-considered, and now illegal action to close their school. They have fought for their rights and won. In the process they have benefited us all.
Stony Brook University made the decision behind closed doors to shut down the Southampton campus. Not only did they fail to consult with its University Council as required by law, they failed to consult with elected officials, community leaders, students and even administrators at the Southampton campus. The entire process lacked transparency and openness. The reason is obvious. The closure of the school cannot be defended in an open discussion.
New York State has invested $78 million at the Southampton campus. That investment was beginning to bear fruit. This past year admission applications were up 54% and SAT scores of applicants were up 100 points. Because of the leadership of the new Dean, Mary Pearl, the school was well on its way to meeting the ultimate goal of 2,000 students. The school was succeeding.
A new Stony Brook President with a hidden agenda to close the campus had to lie to the public to justify his decision. He lied when he said the basis of the decision was financial. He lied when he told the public that under LIU, Southampton College lost $20 million a year. He lied when he said that every Stony Brook would save $6.7 million a year by closing the campus. He lied when he said it costs 2 and a half times as much to educate a student at Southampton as it does at Stony Brook. He lied when he stated 100% of the Southampton students would attend Stony Brook. He lied when he said that the students would be able to get all their classes this year at the Stony Brook campus.
This reckless decision was made behind closed doors, because it could not stand the light of day. If the discussion had been open and transparent, the truth would have won out.
The result of these lies is the waste of a $78 million state taxpayer investment. Further, students have been irreparably damaged both financially and academically. Finally, the East End has temporarily lost the economic and social benefit of the Southampton campus.
Pursuant to the court decision, we will seek the re-opening of the Southampton campus with all deliberate speed. We are at a crossroads. Stony Brook University has a choice.
Stony Brook can continue down its current path of arrogantly attempting to steamroll a community with this reckless decision. If Stony Brook does so, it will continue to fritter away whatever goodwill it still has on the East End, expose the taxpayers of New York State to the inevitable class action lawsuit that students and families will bring for the damages caused by its illegal decision, and find itself in a continuing battle with community leaders over the future of the campus.
The alternative is to finally involve the public and all those with an interest in the future of the Southampton campus to enact a plan that fully realizes the potential of this campus. Such a plan cannot be one that utilizes the campus only for the convenience of Stony Brook, but a plan that meets the real needs of the residents of the East End and all of New York State.”
STATEMENT OF ASSEMBLYMAN FRED W. THIELE ON STATE SUPREME COURT DECISION DECLARING THE CLOSING OF SOUTHAMPTON CAMPUS ILLEGAL
http://www.ny.gov